MAP, et. al, oppose creation of local TV duopolies directly or indirectly (as through devices such as "LMAs") as well as waiver policies which would undermine such current or revised ownership rules as the Commission determine to employ.
In addition, because the Commission has divided its review of broadcast ownership rules into four concurrent overlapping proceedings, these comments also address issues common to each of these dockets, including erroneous assumptions the Commission has made about the nature of the marketplace of ideas and the likelihood of an increasingly concentrated broadcast industry to contribute to diversity in that marketplace of ideas.
Given the dearth of substantive information in the record, especially about transformations in media ownership concentration since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it is imperative that the Commission conduct a qualitative assessment of the present state of viewpoint diversity before considering any proposals to relax the duopoly rule. For the same reasons, the Commission should also suspend its interim duopoly waiver policy.
Diversity in the marketplace of ideas is a function of the number of separately controlled sources of information. The Commission should resist urgings of the broadcasting industry to equate a mere multiplicity of program channels with diversity, since there is no diversity of viewpoint where a large number of offerings are under common economic or editorial control.
The Commission is overly fearful about the supposed economic perils facing the broadcasting industry, and thus overemphasizes cost-saving "efficiencies" rather than preserving diversity. It may therefore be too receptive to arguments that abundant quantities of programming in the market, and not the source diversity of that programming, is sufficient to protect the First Amendment goal of maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas.
Authorization of local TV duopolies would be a severe blow to the public's right to receive information. There is no indication that the profitability of such combinations will in any way redound to the benefit of viewers. For this reason, MAP, et al. do not support various proposals to narrow the geographic scope of the Commission's bar on common-owned TV stations, such as its plan to substitute DMAs for the Grade B test now in use. Nor do they favor "exceptions" for UHF-UHF combos, "failed" stations, small markets, or other devices to evade the imperative of diversity by shutting out new competitors. Any such waivers as the Commission may nonetheless decide to grant should be conditioned on detailed and specific showings that there will be palpable service improvements to the community, and subject to constant review to insure those commitments are met. That the Commission even asks about some of these schemes indicates a willingness to sacrifice the public interest, as does the suggestion that potential new or uncompetitive media formats may be equated with broadcasting for purposes of diversity analysis.
The welcome proposal to restore "out of market" TV satellites to calculations of national audience reach does not absolve the FCC of its irresponsible refusal even to decide the five year-old appeal of its satellite rule revisions. Neither this change, nor the proposed treatment of "intramarket" satellites, however, addresses the fundamental problem, i.e. that in the name of localism the FCC still tolerates stations which need carry no locally originated content.
Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of this review is the suggestion that the Commission should tolerate the blatant evasion of ownership policies through the device of "LMAs." Such arrangements have never been lawful, and the Commission should not bless them simply because an unknown number of broadcasters have employed this extralegal mechanism. Congress has authorized the Commission to disapprove LMAs expressly, including existing LMAs, and it should use that power.